I agree especially since Ensign had presidential

WASHINGTON � It's just about the last thing the beleaguered Republican Party needed: a Christian conservative with national aspirations admitting to an extramarital affair with an ex-staffer.

Add Nevada Sen. John Ensign's infidelity admission to an ever-growing list of woes for the out-of-power GOP.

One senator's predicament hardly condemns an entire party. But the episode is an unwelcome distraction as the Republicans, their ranks shrinking, seek a turnaround after disastrous losses in consecutive national elections.

Since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have struggled to counter his popularity and the Democrats' command of Congress.

The GOP's new national chairman, Michael Steele, got off to a rocky start. Moderate Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter defected to the Democrats. And Democrat AL Franken is favored to eventually be declared the winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race over incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman.

Now this.

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life," Ensign said Tuesday at a hastily arranged news conference in Sin City itself, Las Vegas.

He didn't name the woman, but Cindy Hampton came forward later to say through an attorney that she regretted Ensign's decision to "air this very personal matter." Federal records showed that she was on his political payroll and received a promotion and a pay raise around the time he said the affair began in late 2007.

There also was a report of a previous affair, in 2002, an indication that the drip, drip of dalliance details may only just be beginning.

On Wednesday, as fellow senators remained mum, Ensign resigned his leadership post. The skilled communicator and proven fundraiser was the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the No. 4 Senate Republican.

Until his admission, Ensign was trying to raise his national profile. Popular in Nevada though virtually unknown elsewhere, he recently flirted with a 2012 presidential run, visiting the early voting state of Iowa and refusing to tamp down speculation of a bid.

Those dreams now seem dead.

Said Scott Reed, a Republican operative in Washington: "It's a setback for the GOP in that Ensign is an attractive Republican politician who has national potential but has probably been sidelined."

There is no shortage of ambitious Republicans angling to be the fresh face of a party that many voters consider stale. Yet, other prospects also seem to be falling out of favor.

Stunting one potential threat, Obama recently named a GOP rising star with White House interest � Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman � as the U.S. ambassador to China. Another Republican hopeful, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, has asked supporters to end efforts to draft him for a presidential run.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seems to be tangled in a new controversy every week. One week, it was an embarrassing high-profile back-and-forth with GOP House and Senate leaders over her attendance at a fundraising dinner. The next, she went after comedian David Letterman.

That said, there are others methodically positioning themselves to lead the GOP � and perhaps be the 2012 nominee. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty opted against running for a third term; confidants believe he'll run for president. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is fundraising for GOP candidates and criticizing Obama in anticipation of another campaign.

But the GOP is having trouble turning the page on the George W. Bush era. Polls show that it's the old-timers touting years-old messages � former Vice President Dick Cheney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich � who are identified the most as party leaders.

Since Obama won the White House and Democrats padded their House and Senate majorities last fall, Republicans have struggled to consistently challenge the new president. He's rolled out a bold agenda and is racking up successes. Republicans recently have seized on his sweeping government expansion and giant price tags. But, with fewer numbers in Congress and no singular leader, the GOP's ability to do anything more than gripe is limited.

Then there are the party's structural and philosophical problems. Polls show a dwindling percentage of people consider themselves Republican and the GOP has lost its grip on every part of the country but the South. It's obvious the GOP needs to attract new loyalists. But the party is in the midst of a family feud over whether to return to conservative roots or moderate its pitch to recruit a wider membership.

Sex scandals don't help, particularly for a party that's weathered its share in recent years and that's made up of staunch social conservatives who preach morality. They include Ensign, who is a member of the men's Christian ministry Promise Keepers, which calls itself committed to building strong marriages.

Over the past two years, Senate Republicans watched Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho plead guilty to charges in connection with an airport bathroom sex sting with a male undercover officer and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologize for a "very serious sin in my past" after his Washington phone number was discovered among those called by an escort service suspected of prostitution.

Electorally, the GOP's situation in the Senate has been disastrous; Republicans lost no less than a dozen seats in 2006 and 2008, when Ensign was in charge of electing GOP senators. And, 2010 is shaping up to be another tough year, with a wave of open seats Republicans must defend because of retirements.

House Republicans, too, sustained back-to-back shellackings. But the GOP has reasonable expectations of gaining seats there next fall; even Democrats say some of their members are in reliably Republican districts.

The GOP hopes its resurgence begins this fall by retaking governorships in Virginia and New Jersey � and even Democrats say they have a shot.

The party has plenty of revival plans. Barring more unpleasant surprises.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE � Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

This is "very damaging stuff," Sanford declared at one point, when details of Clinton's conduct became known. "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)... I come from the business side," he said. "If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."

Explaining his decision to back impeachment articles against Clinton, he added, "I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible... I feel very comfortable with my vote."

Interestingly, not only did this guy have an affair, but he had an affair with an employee of his. During the time of the affair her salary doubled, and her 19-year-old son also managed to get on the payroll. When the affair ended, her salary went back to the normal rate. That little increase was paid for by you and me via tax dollars.

So, how do you guys feel about paying for his affair? Isn't there a word for it when sexual favors are bought? LOL.

It has now been reported that he's coming clean about the affair because the girl he was having an affair with and her husband (also an employee) threatened blackmail. But that was yesterday. Now there is a new little twist. See link.

Please do not tell any of the following their lives are not DIRECTLY affected by the President:

1. The teachers and students who spend most of their time preparing for NCLB standardized testing while falling behind in basic life skills. This affects EVERY student and EVERY teacher in EVERY public school in the United States.

2. The soldiers who have been to Iraq,as well as their survivors. Their mission was to destroy nonexistent WMDs.

3. The millions of people who cannot afford health insurance or oil to heat their homes. Of course our president does believe "profits" are a good thing; unfortunately they are for corporate America.

I am not advising who to vote for; obviously it is a personal choice. But anyone who says no one person can make a difference, good or bad, is naive.

Ok........ I'll say at least Michelle Obama said we'd like to "rescue" a dog. But now we've got the AKC involved in 2 Poodles, who are in a Poodle Rescue. I guess Id prefer that, but would prefer going to an actual kill-shelter and adopting, which is what I think Michelle meant in the first place.

Though......... What do you guys think of the hype of having a "Dog" in the White House. It's almost like it's the "designer" thing.

I remember Bill Clinton going and getting "Buddy".... It started with just Socks the cat didn't it?

I mean, all the love to them, for liking dogs and stuff, god knows I'm an animal lover.

But..... Seems weird. Now that I'm president and in the White House, you can have a dog. Not before, but Now you can.

President-elect Barack Obama has promised his two daughters a new puppy, sparking widespread speculation over the breed of the First Dog-to-be.
Cristina Corbin

Thursday, November 06, 2008

To the lucky pup poised to become the next First Dog: Mind your manners.

Barney, President Bush's usually docile Scottish Terrier, once nipped at a White House intern -- now a FOXNews.com reporter -- when she accidentally dug a fingernail into the pooch while holding him.

Bill Clinton's cat, Socks, routinely hissed at the First Dog, Buddy. And Teddy Roosevelt's pit bull once famously ripped the pants of the French ambassador.

In his election victory speech Tuesday night, President-elect Barack Obama promised his two daughters that they'd be moving into the White House with a new puppy. Now the dogosphere is engaged in widespread speculation over the breed of the presidential pooch-to-be.

Or pooches-to-be. The American Kennel Club hopes that the pet will turn out to be a pair of 6-week-old toy poodles, rescued by Flora's Pet Project/Poodle Rescue in Connecticut. First lady-to-be Michelle Obama said in an interview last month that the family was interested in adopting a rescue dog after the election.

The puppies were transported to the AKC's New York offices, where they were to be photographed professionally Thursday in the hopes of catching the Obama family's attention.

"The dogs were in an unfortunate situation and were not being cared for properly," said Marianne Smith, a spokeswoman for the rescue agency. Smith said the puppies were "voluntarily surrendered," but declined to give further details.

In an online presidential dog poll conducted by the AKC in August, the poodle breed was the top dog among 42,000 respondents. Other contenders were the soft-coated Wheaten Terrier and Bichon Frise.

In a Communispace.com survey of 308 people taken after the election, 25 percent of those polled predicted the Obamas will get a golden retriever; 15 percent said a "pound dog," and 14 percent said a Jack Russell terrier.

Promoting her poodles, AKC spokeswoman Lisa Peterson said: "We hope the Obamas consider the survey results.... This poodle is a breed that doesn't always get the respect it deserves, but it is truly an ideal family pet."

"The poodle is a highly versatile breed," she said. "It's extremely intelligent and easily trained. This dog is going to visit many places, and so you want it to have good manners."

One of the Obamas' daughters suffers from allergies, so poodles -- which do not shed -- would be an ideal choice, Peterson said. The breed's obedient temperament and intelligence also make it a perfect candidate, she said.

In a letter to Obama in September, the AKC offered its assistance in choosing the White House dog and urged the Illinois senator to consider the toy poodle if he were elected. The AKC said it didn't send a letter to John McCain, because the Arizona senator already has 24 pets, including four dogs.

From 1960-1982, the poodle was the number one breed in America. Winston Churchill, Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon all reportedly owned one.

Past White House breeds include George H. W. Bush's Springer Spaniel "Millie," Ronald Reagan's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel "Rex" and Caroline Kennedy's Welsh Terrier "Charlie." President Clinton's dog "Buddy" was a chocolate lab.

A pair of six-week-old Toy Poodle puppies rescued by Flora's Pet Project/Poodle Rescue Connecticut visited the American Kennel Club offices in New York Thursday to be photographed in hopes of catching the attention of the Obama family.

Here is Novak's recent article on him. Creepy. Reminds me a little of a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think it is important to get the opinions of those people in the districts politicians serve. Those opinions on Huckabee are not very good.

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.

The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

As a presidential candidate, Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.

Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.

Nevertheless, he is getting remarkably warm reviews in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining and interesting GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old associates, he is now called "jovial" or "good-natured." Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to benefit from friendly media support, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000 but not today with his return to being more like a conventional Republican.

An uncompromising foe of abortion can never enjoy full media backing. But Mike Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with his evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.

there is an office for the President Elect that the government pays for. You can read the information on the link provided to see what all is paid for - but it seems quite apparent to me that there is an office of the president elect and has been for quite some time - nothing new. Obama may have given it an official title that nobody has used openly before, but it has been established for at least 45 years.

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/?page=2

This is very enlightening for those who want to know their candidates thoughts about executive power.

Here is NPR's write up of today's press conference by the president for those who would like a quick run down. I just listened to it. Made me nauseous.

WASHINGTON December 4, 2007, 1:04 p.m. ET � President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.

It is also stood in marked contrast to Bush's rhetoric on Iran. At his last news conference on Oct. 17, for instance, he said that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week. But he portrayed it as valuable ammunition against Tehran, not as a reason to lessen diplomatic pressure.

"To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community � to continue to rally the community � to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," the president said. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program."

He also asserted that the report means "nothing's changed," focusing on the previous existence of a weapons program and not addressing the discrepancy between his rhetoric and the disclosure that weapons program has been frozen for four years.

Bush said he is not troubled about his standing, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people. "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited � pretty good about life," Bush said.

"I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."

Bush said the report's finding would not prompt him to take a U.S. military option against Tehran off the table.

"The best diplomacy � effective diplomacy � is one in which all options are on the table," he said.

The president also said that the world would agree with his message that Iran shouldn't be let off the hook yet.

In fact, Europeans said the new information strengthens their argument for negotiations with Tehran, but they also said that sanctions are still an option to compel Iran to be fully transparent about its nuclear program. European officials insisted that the international community should not walk away from years of talks with an often defiant Tehran that is openly enriching uranium for uncertain ends. The report said Iran could still build a nuclear bomb by 2010-2015.

In Kabul, Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reinforced the U.S. position that the new U.S. intelligence assessment shows that Tehran remains a possible threat. He said it shows that Iran has had a nuclear weapons program and that as long as the country continues with its uranium enrichment activities, Iran could always renew its weapons program.

The U.S. intelligence assessment "validated the administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic efforts to bear on Iran," Gates said Tuesday, speaking at a news conference with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.

Bush called the news conference, his first in nearly seven weeks, to intensify pressure on lawmakers amid disputes over spending and the Iraq war. Taking advantage of his veto power and the largest bully pulpit in town, Bush regularly scolds Congress as a way to stay relevant and frame the debate as his presidency winds down.

Democrats counter that Bush is more interested in making statements than genuinely trying to negotiate some common ground with them.

Specifically, Bush again on Tuesday challenged Congress to send him overdue spending bills; to approve his latest war funding bill without conditions; to pass a temporary to fix to the alternative minimum tax so millions of taxpayers don't get hit with tax increases; and to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Congress still has a lot to do," Bush said. "It doesn't have very much time to do it."

On another matter, Bush was asked about a rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her � a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. Saudi Arabia has faced enormous international criticism about the sentencing.

"My first thoughts were these," Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been � I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."

Bush, however, said he has not made his views known directly to Saudi King Abdullah, an ally. But he added: "He knows our position loud and clear."

The president said the U.S. economy is strong, though he acknowledged that the housing crisis has become a "headwind." He said administration officials are working on the issue, but he is wary of bailing out lenders. "We shouldn't say, 'OK, you made a lousy loan so we're going to go ahead and subsidize you.' "

Asked about the 2008 election, Bush steered himself back out of commenting on politics. "I practiced some punditry in the past � I'm not going to any further."

�"The Venezuelan people rejected one-man rule" when they rejected a constitutional provision that would have enabled Hugo Chavez to remain in power for life and drive changes throughout Venezuelan society. "They voted for democracy."

�He talked by telephone Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and briefed him on the new Iran intelligence estimate. Bush also said he told Putin that "we were sincere in our expressions of concern" about irregularities in the voting that produced a sweeping parliamentary victory for Putin's party.

�He has "cordial relations" with Democratic leaders of Congress despite the sharp words between the White House and Capitol Hill. He blamed Democrats for the lack of compromises, saying, "In order for us to be able to reach accord, they got to come with one voice, one position."

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.

I agree especially since Ensign had presidential

Analysis: Ensign affair a shock GOP didn't need